On 10/7/06, Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Lebowitz:
> My question, though, is what would it take to convince you
> that, at this point (I stress this because I think the first round
> was a different matter), it is appropriate to vote for Lula? If you
> can dismiss Sader's judgement so easily (intellectuals are fair
> game), would you also say that the Brazilian mass movements had
> lost their way because they didn't understand what is to be done in
> the struggle in Brazil?
Of course I think they have lost their way. The 20th century and now
the 21st century has been marked by such adaptation. The French left
backed Jospin against Le Pen. Tariq Ali backed John Kerry. The
American left backed LBJ in 1964. This is the norm actually, but I
don't mind being in a minority.
All examples you bring up are those from the West, though, namely
France and the USA. What makes sense at the core of the multinational
empire doesn't always make sense at the periphery -- even a relatively
richer part of it like Brazil -- and vice versa.
That's what happens when the revolutionary left endures 75
years of Stalinist and social democratic confusion.
I'm sure neither Emir Sader nor Joao Pedro Stedile would back Lula if
a revolution were happening in Brazil and Lula were standing in the
way.
What are the revolutionary left to do, though, when people are, well,
not really revolutionary? A revolutionary chance, it seems to me,
comes only once in several decades in any country. For the rest of
the time, leftists have to think about how to defend gains won in the
past and win a few small victories in the absence of revolutionary
ferments from below, from the people themselves.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
